You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Net Neutrality in the US - Why it's in danger and how Steemians can help
I get a lot of bad things are happening, but we're not there yet I think.
And also, as a European, I get the states that want to secede. I mean, how on earth does a win by popular vote not equal a proper win! That's the definition of a democracy! I understand why the system wants all states to have equal weight - that's I guess the reason the States agreed to become Unified in the first place - but I also understand the frustration of the vast majority of Americans who can't seem to be able to control a country whose majority they constitute.
It's a republic, not a direct democracy. It is designed to avoid tyranny of a majority and to give states rights. It has been that way for 200+ years. I'm not sure why the left still cannot understand this very basic premise after all this time. There was no "vast majority" in the election either. There was a small majority but all squeezed into a few echo chamber places in SF and NYC.
Also, this occurrence of a tiny majority differing from the electoral college is very rare. It has only happened 2 or 3 times in the entire history of the nation. So, the system we have works fine.
http://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/
Lol! That sounds like an oxymoron.
And 2 of them in recent history. I.e. Al Gore vs George W. Bush & Trump vs Hilary. The last quarter of a century should've basically been Democrats all the way.
You don't understand the tyranny of a majority? Here's an example, today's democrats are tyrannical people who believe that if you do not agree with their point of view then you do not have or deserve constitutional rights. If they had enough majority they would remove the constitution altogether and decide on their own whim what rights you are "allowed" to have.
No, the last quarter century should not have been democrats - they lost. They lost by the rules that exist. Again, the democrats and you (and I guess you are a fan of the democrats) DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR 230+ YEARS. You don't get to break the rules because you lost and want to have a temper tantrum. Look at all those elections and the democrats have lost every election from top to bottom across the federal, state governorships, and state congresses.
Here's the cool thing about the constitution, it lays out rules and methods to change it if you want to. The democrats are free to go through the process to change the constitution and offer amendments or whatever. But, they don't try because they know not enough people will agree. Instead they are tyrannical crybabies and try to change the system by force or other methods.
You need to read 1984 again.
I consider myself a liberal, yes. And from what I can tell, most of academia are liberals too, and I suspect that's because education leads to liberalism. Just to give an example within steemit, there's a group here where scientists gather, and from what I can tell the vast majority of them are left-inclined.
I also need to mention again my knowledge of politics isn't very deep.
Your view of democrats though I think is a caricature! Democrats have a similar but reverse view of conservatives.
I don't know about you, but I'm an atheist. I believe in science and logic. I respect the founding fathers, but they were not error-free. The constitution isn't the Bible. When I was studying philosophy, a mere undergrad, I got to discover mistakes in some of the greatest thinkers who ever walked planet Earth. I don't see - just on a point of logic - why modern politicians shouldn't be allowed to do the same with the constitution, no matter how great were those who wrote it. I mean, to give an extreme example, you think that even 3000 years into the future, the American constitution should be exactly the same as now?
You say the constitution can be changed. But it's hard when republicans always own the house. See next point:
That's because liberals don't vote. They only vote for presidents.
I think republicans are plenty guilty of that! What's your opinion about what happened with Scalia for instance? How on earth did the republicans get away with not allowing Obama to appoint a judge, I'll never know.
And what about arranging things so that black and poor people can't vote? And what about gerrymandering?
I think republicans are much guiltier of using surreptitious means to win. And they do all that because they know they're in the minority, and there's no way in hell they could win a fair fight.
I don't think there needs to be a Civil War in the U.S.! The only thing that needs to happen, is that liberals should get the liberals to start voting. That's it. End of story. It's 'our' own fault, basically. If things were fair, there would be no contest, but liberals are like cats, you can't herd them, whereas conservatives are so tight they can even put Creation next to Evolution in schools and not be laughed out of court. That's how much power they have, despite their small numbers. Yeah, I view them almost the same way they view the Jews!
I'll give you one thing, you guys sure know how to drink the kool aid and stay on message with all the false narrative the party sends you.
Academia is a career choice, not an indicator of smarts. All it means is you had enough cash to stay in college for 8 years. Many of those people choose academia because they studied an unproductive, unneeded career, or wanted the low/no stress environment, allows them to chase/harass college girls forever, afraid of a productive work environment, many reasons.
I'm an atheist and libertarian. Again, the constitution is changeable. If your political philosophy and ideas are not good enough to convince enough people to elect the right representatives then that is on you. Voter turnout is low in the US regardless of party so quit whining about that.
Geez, you guys have short memories and are massively hypocritical. Chuck Schumer stated and tried to delay/stall a judge vote for 3 years during Bush. Obama's judge appointment was legitimately delayed because he only had 6 months left. Anyway, the whole judge attack game got started by the dems. FDR tried to change the court to have 12 or 13 judges or whatever so he could appoint a bunch of them overnight and they attacked Bork way back in the Reagan days. Every cycle the dems are the ones that ramp up to the next level of roadblock and then scream bloody murder when the repubs later do the exact thing they already did.
Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering. But, the repubs don't block anyone from voting, they only want to make sure it is only citizens that vote - that's just the law. Just last week a woman went to jail for 8 weeks for voting 8 times - of course for dems. If you want to produce some outrage about blacks, then why do the dems prevent them from having good schools or choice? All of the most shitty schools are in democrat cities that they have fully controlled for 50+ years and they refuse to allow vouchers so they can escape.
You guys are the best at brainwashing and controlling the media, that's your only strength. Keep all those students stupid and dependent on the government and begging for "free" things. God forbid any student learning any financial responsibility so they can see they don't need the nanny state.
The repubs voted Trump.
QED.
and you guys liked him until he decided to run republican. total hypocrisy and manufactured outrage over nothing. Good thing for you Soros has deep pockets to keep funding your fake protests by clueless moronic millennials brought up in your "education" camps.
Again, read 1984 again. If you have an open mind you will recognize the democrat party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
http://www.economist.com/node/15127600
https://edsitement.neh.gov/curriculum-unit/alexis-de-tocqueville-tyranny-majority
Well, as a rational person, living on an island where 99.9% of people believe in God, I always felt first-hand the tyranny of the majority. If it were up to me, I would have every decision made on the basis on logic and science. For instance, climate change. Does it exist? Let's ask the scientists. It's not a point of contention. You don't get to have an opinion.
If a point can be decided with science and reason, why would we ever let the majority vote? If it can't, that means there's no objective way to decide the issue, so we might as well go with 'whatever the majority wants', at least we'll satisfy the utilitarians.